Democrats in 2008

[Ben.]

These people should give serious thought to running…

Sn.Evan Bayh

Sn.Bill Nelson

Sn.Russ Feingold

Sn.Chris Dodd

Sn.Blanche Lincoln   

Gov.Ed Rendell

Gov.Phil Bredesen 

Gov.Mark Warner

Howard Dean

…not that all of them would be good candidates, on the contrary a number of them would to one degree or another be complete failures.

These people should look to other Presidential races in the future or just forget it (Hillary I’m looking at You!)…

Sn.Barack Obama: He will be too inexperienced by far and will need a few more years and a second term to iron out his positions and strike a more moderate tone before he is competitive nationwide, where he to run now for example he would lose for being type cast a liberal, an economic populist is fine but he will have to work on the social side of things along with the entire democratic party. Then again despite his liberal politics from what I’ve seen Obama is very good a speaking the “language of morality”.

Sn.Hillary Clinton: Too divisive, seen as far too Liberal and she just wouldn’t win. Added to this if Rudy runs she will have one hell of a fight on her hands and may not survive. But for gods sake Hillary stay where you are!

John Edwards: Much as I like Edwards he’s going to have squat to do for four years and a one term senator who has been doing squat for four years and has zero national security experience is not going to be competitive no matter how much he tries. He needs to do what FDR did go back to his home state, network and run for governor in 2008 (Easley has hinted that this would be his last race), he’s young enough to wait a while for the presidency.

Eliot Spitzer: He’s gained a strong standing amongst voters with his anti-corruption crusade as NY AG, and he turning out to be a pragmatic moderate, if Giuliani doesn’t run for the Governorship then he would be well placed not only to get the Democratic nomination but to either beat Pataki or take the Governorship in an open race (more likely that Pataki will retire IMHO).                           

[Ben.]

Please put the bitch up.  Please let her run.  I beg you.  Please.

That’s a bit harsh language but I agree it would be a real treat for the GOP if she got the nomination and if she faced McCain it just wouldn’t be funny... then again if McCain gets the GOP nomination I'm all for running a sacrificial lamb like Dodd, Vilsack or Richardson etc... And concentrating on the Senate and House while Warner et-al keep busy for the next four years.   

[Ben.]

Please put the bitch up.  Please let her run.  I beg you.  Please.

That’s a bit harsh language but I agree it would be a real treat for the GOP if she got the nomination and if she faced McCain it just wouldn’t be funny... then again if McCain gets the GOP nomination I'm all for running a sacrificial lamb like Dodd, Vilsack or Richardson etc... And concentrating on the Senate and House while Warner et-al keep busy for the next four years.   

Why do you consider Richardson a sacraficial lamb?

Richardson has been a good governor by all accounts and was an ok Energy sectary, but he was embroiled in one or two mini-scandals while in that post, while he would be a capable candidate I just don’t think he’s “presidential” and his remarks when folks where mentioning him as a potential VP for Kerry suggest that he too feels the same way… with a strong campaign Richardson could win but I don’t think it likely the same as it was for Dole, he’s competent and likeable (unlike Dole who was respected rather than liked) but as with folks like Vilsack and Dodd he wouldn’t have any special appeal but would be able to hold together the Democratic base while still probably losing and against McCain any democrat I can think of would probably lose… so if he runs the likes of Dodd, Vilsack and Richardson would be good-sacrificial lambs as while their capable they would not be the kind of candidates that the party would plumb for in any contest they saw as winnable, however of the three Richardson would be the best to select for a “winnable” contest IMHO.      

[Ben.]

Hillary will be the nominee because she wants to be and she controls the money and power of the party.

I support your efforts to try and stop her; it just won't happen.

Disagree if she controlled the party Dean would have been the nominee to make sure there was a clean run for Hillary in 2008... unlike Bill she will have few friends on the the right of the party and even in the centre while the left may be distrustful of her and more willing to back Dean again or Feingold... also she may well have been beaten by Rudy by 2008      

[Ben.]

Hillary will run and win in 2008.
Sorry folks but she can cary ohio, nevada, colorado, florida and arkansas.
I feel sorry for pathetic republicans calling her a bitch. This shows their viewpoint towards strong women which intimidate them since they are just sorry losers.

I'm a Democrat and I say that she can't win and she should run in the primaires.

[Ben.]

I'd choose other- Zell Miller!

Zell Miller is a republican, he just won't admit it

I would argue that's not so, i think he's gone a bit overboard but to be fair i can understand his reaction to what had become of the Dem leadership on the hill.

Nancy Pelosi makes me want to barf...

[Ben.]

Head of the DNC is probably a great job for him, but it signals the end of his running for public office.

And watch at the DNC Chair calls half of the party Democrats in name only and the Republican wing of the Democratic Party... I'd be in a very difficult fix if he became chair as would many moderate and conservative democrats... Dona Brazil all the way! That said James Carville would be fun

[Ben.]

Head of the DNC is probably a great job for him, but it signals the end of his running for public office.

And watch at the DNC Chair calls half of the party Democrats in name only and the Republican wing of the Democratic Party... I'd be in a very difficult fix if he became chair as would many moderate and conservative democrats... Dona Brazil all the way! That said James Carville would be fun

At least he would stand for something.  We would have a barometer for judging whetehr democrats are left or right of the core DNC.

Carville would be a hoot, especially since I expcet he would still want to work on CNN. 

Hey! I'm quite fond of the Ragin' Cagen!

Dean isn't liberal though, he suddenly became liberal in early 2003, and before that he wouldn't have been out of place with Libertarian leaning Dems like Tony Knowles and Brian Schweitzer it was breath taking to see how radical he drove towards the far left of the party, had he remained a passionate moderate he would have been a competive candidate but he wasn’t and added to this he then had the temerity to turn round to moderate and conservative dems and even broad groups like the DLC and lecture us on what “real democrats” where all about an how we where not really democrats but hailed from the “Republican wing of the Democratic Party”… I’m sorry but the man has some cheek.

[Ben.]

Head of the DNC is probably a great job for him, but it signals the end of his running for public office.

And watch at the DNC Chair calls half of the party Democrats in name only and the Republican wing of the Democratic Party... I'd be in a very difficult fix if he became chair as would many moderate and conservative democrats... Dona Brazil all the way! That said James Carville would be fun

At least he would stand for something.  We would have a barometer for judging whetehr democrats are left or right of the core DNC.

Carville would be a hoot, especially since I expcet he would still want to work on CNN. 

Hey! I'm quite fond of the Ragin' Cagen!

Dean isn't liberal though, he suddenly became liberal in early 2003, and before that he wouldn't have been out of place with Libertarian leaning Dems like Tony Knowles and Brian Schweitzer it was breath taking to see how radical he drove towards the far left of the party, had he remained a passionate moderate he would have been a competive candidate but he wasn’t and added to this he then had the temerity to turn round to moderate and conservative dems and even broad groups like the DLC and lecture us on what “real democrats” where all about an how we where not really democrats but hailed from the “Republican wing of the Democratic Party”… I’m sorry but the man has some cheek.

Dean is liberal in belief, moderate in action.  He believes it is better to take baby steps toward his core beliefs than to try and go for it all at once and end up getting nothing done.

You are right that his running far left and insulting tone hurts his position in the party.

Carville, unlike most of the potential DNC heads, at least remains in touch with reality and understands the message of the recent election cycles.  I just think it would be funny for CNN to keep saying they have no editorial bias or slant and have the DNC chief on their payroll.

Ah CNN, along with CBS, ABC, the NYT, WP and pretty much half the internet the Democrat counter to FOX and the WSJ lol!

 

[Ben.]

Of the choices given (and, let's face it, everyone hates the "other" vote) I chose Edwards because he's a southern Democrat and he is quite likable.  And Bayh just sucks.

Edwards would do very poorly after four years of doing diddily squat and his voting record is almost as Liberal as Kerry's, he won't win the nomination and if he goes for it he's a fool IMHO.

Bayh has the experience and the record as a moderate and by-partisan legislator that make him by far the strongest candidate that the party could ever hope to put forward, the only other viable candidate is Warner and he's too weak on experaince IMHO and as he could stand a great chance of winning a senate seat in 2008 he should go for that rather than make the same mistake of Mr Edwards.